I've just ordered a book entitled The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted by Mike Lofren. I literally started weeping while placing the order. That's how f*cked up I think our political mess is right now. I'll let y'all know what I think of the book.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

I'm not so sure this is about what we can or cannot be "trusted" to do. It is more about a collective social balance, where some groups believe that their particular ideas/morals/etc. are better than everyone else. I know that seems to be the case no matter which side one is on. But ultimately, the balance cannot be achieved when we have less equality across groups, or less access to resources.

I've just ordered a book entitled The Party Is Over: How Republicans Went Crazy, Democrats Became Useless, and the Middle Class Got Shafted by Mike Lofren. I literally started weeping while placing the order. That's how f*cked up I think our political mess is right now. I'll let y'all know what I think of the book.

Keep us informed, sounds like something I may want to read.

Quote

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

I hope these words aren't going to be again implemented, but I am less confident daily.

Logged

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution."

It has been my experience that at an individual one on one level, nearly everyone I speak with is willing to compromise. For example

With no witnesses I have had a conversation with an avid pro choice individual.

Within their group of peers they were unrelenting and extremist in their defense of abortion.

Alone with me they were still very pro choice but much less violently opposed to certain compromises.

I drove my neighbor the the DMV to get his license reinstated yesterday. He is 55, poor and white. Grew up here in the mountains and is racist. He also happens to be a Democrat and a felon. He is aware that racism is bad but he can't change the nature of his upbringing anymore than he can change the air he breaths.

He made a statement that everybody is the same except when you get a bunch of black people together they act like a bunch of thugs.

This is how he has come to justify his racism. It's not far from the truth, he just only applies it to black people and a negative stereotype associated with young black people.

As I have said before, there are no stories written about great people willing to compromise. We think the only way the system works is through solid rigidity. Standing FIRM in your beliefs until you are either crushed or reign victorious. This is a false dichotomy. Every politician you see in the spot light is trying to portray themselves as a hero and must act accordingly by standing FIRM in their convictions. They use polls to determine what the best convictions to have might be.

Even if Romney wants to abolish abortion for good and all that doesn't automatically mean that this will happen if he is elected president. A vote for Romney does not equal a referendum against women's rights.

If Obama wins a second term it does not equal a referendum against gun rights or the evil rich people.

Historically, the United States has flourished based on our public servant's ability to compromise among one another to do what is right and what is in the best interest for all Americans. I'm not saying it was ever easy but it seems to me during the last few years that there has been NO compromise from either side. They all want to be heroes standing firm in their convictions no matter how detrimental those convictions my be to our individual liberties.

They are very transparent in their loyalty to the hand that feeds them and have a complete disregard for the people they were elected to represent.

All this will eventually lead to a great compromise. But the trend will be towards less liberty, less freedom, less individual discretion for all. Why? Because the more we struggle and protest their actions the more difficult it is for them to obey their masters will.

Like Nick lamented, it is easier to lower everyone to a base level than it is to elevate everyone to a higher level.

Now, you may read this little diatribe and think to yourself that I am describing the nature of the relationship between big business and the Republicans so let me remind you all that I personally see no difference at all between the two parties. I am talking about both of them. They are working together to erode our individual liberty and our national sovereignty all while propping them selves up as champions of freedom and demonizing the other side for doing the exact same thing.

I do see a difference, even though both parties are controlled by money interests. It is not government against the people. It is the rich against everyone else, because the rich control the government. And the media. And the justice system.

Rich people can go anywhere and pay to have anything they want, but the rest of us have to live with the policies. The money interests don't care about race, abortion, crime, prayer, gays or guns. (They will always be able to get abortions, guns, gay sex, police protection, or whatever, regardless of the laws and regulations.) But they know that there are voters who are worried about this stuff, and who will vote for the politicians who can tap into these fears.

The money funding the right wing is pushing policies that will dramatically hurt the people of this country, and of the world. They use the media to frighten people into voting for policies that will make their lives worse! Old people, children, gays, women, immigrants, minorities and poor people in the US will suffer more. People will become less knowledgeable about the world, about science, about each other. The environment will be damaged more. The world will become even more dangerous--for those of us who don't have the money to cushion us from the realities.

One side wants to make this country better, because they are committed to the welfare and a better future for the United States and the world. They see the world as a family trying to survive together on spaceship earth. Their flaws are caring too much, thinking too much and not being hard-hearted enough. They are "pointy-headed intellectuals and hippies".

The other side doesn't care about the US or the world. They see the world as the deserving few against the unwashed masses trying to take their sh!t. They think their money will protect them in their underground bunkers or on their ranches in South America or villas in Europe. They don't think about the long-term future, cause then they will be dead and gone. They are "sociopaths and global gangsters".

I would rather have a party where the money is pandering to those of us on the side of human rights, health care for everyone, more protection of the environment, less military intervention and more science education. It's still money behind the policies, but these policies will help more than harm.

That is the difference.

PS I don't think we can be trusted to make good decisions unless we have good information. Where are people supposed to get the information to make the best decisions about their lives, their health, their kids' educations, the environment, etc, if moneyed interests control education and the media? The scientists and health activists with no money are supposed to compete with billions of dollars of misinformation in the "marketplace of ideas"?

How long did the corporations lie to us and to the government about cigarettes? Hint: they are still lying. How much money have the oil companies spent convincing us that there are no problems with petroleum, and that solar energy is unviable--even as China and Brazil are moving right along with alternatives?

Are the businesses that want to sell us big gas guzzling cars going to tell us about the damage to our health and the environment caused by those big cars? Or are those businesses going to use psychological manipulation to make us feel safe, protected, wealthy and cool when we drive a big car? Under those conditions the decision that feels really right can be a really bad decision.

^I agree with many of your points but the the thing is: those trying to help everyone: also lie. And, though they may think that their lies are okay since they are trying to help everyone; at the end of the day: they are still lies.

^I agree with many of your points but the the thing is: those trying to help everyone: also lie. And, though they may think that their lies are okay since they are trying to help everyone; at the end of the day: they are still lies.

-Nam

The pointy-headed hippies are more likely to show their work. Then you can check to see who is closer to the truth. Romney et al don't think the little people need to be shown anything. Just shut up, trust the rich folks and give them that tax cut, dammit. Remember, if you aren't rich, blame yourself.

Of course another possibility to consider is the deliberate plan to shift the entire political spectrum to the right.

The GOP is just suddenly become a caricature of right conservatism? It is so fundamentalist with so many extreme fundie fruitloops pushing harder and harder to the right, that it is costing itself heavily with moderate republicans, and failing in the polls exactly because of the cartoon extremes.

What if wealth doesn't care in the short term? What if the resultant drift to the right that the democrats have made in kneejerk response (covering their malleable voter numbers) is what wealth really wants?

The trade off of a few years out of power would serve more than one need. You get to throw your own rabid idiots to the masses (clearing out your own halls).It would support the illusion that there is a real democracy.It would condition a populace into accepting that seemingly mid-right policies are reasonable (when compared to the wild fundy extremes), when in fact those central right tenets you now offer as moderate, just a while ago used to be considered extreme right.You get to present apparently "moderate" and "sane" candidates later down the track at a time when the electorate might be looking for another change. (meanwhile of course you do everything in your power to cripple the standing governments capability and policies)

It forces?enables the left to drift right while still calling themselves an opposition party. (The illusion of democracy is maintained even while democracy is being further reduced by wealth)

I still suggest that the GOP hierarchy never meant to win the last election, and on this one they're having an each way bet.

Wealth doesn't need them in power to manipulate the masses. They are just part of the manipulative toolset.

Logged

"...but on a lighter note, demons were driven from a pig today in Gloucester." Bill Bailey

I do feel that everything's shifted to the right on several fronts, kin hell. Perhaps not on social issues like gay and women's rights, but in many other areas. Quotes from old republicans sound like recent dems, and the republicans are simply nuts.

Logged

If we ever travel thousands of light years to a planet inhabited by intelligent life, let's just make patterns in their crops and leave.

Wait...I'm confused...I thought that the Republicans didn't have a plan. I thought all they were was a bunch of obstructionists. So what the fuck is all this shit?

It's not an either or proposition. The notion that the Republican party has plans and the notion that the Republican party are "a bunch of obstructionists" are not mutually exclusive. In the House they have voted for the Ryan budget. In the Senate, they've used the filibuster as well as holds on prospective appointees awaiting confirmation at unprecedented rates.

In both houses they've opposed policies that they used to be in favor of, seemingly for the simple fact that Obama has come out in favor of them. The Affordable Care Act, for example, was based on Mitt Romney's health care plan in Massachusetts, which itself was based on a Heritage Foundation proposal that was the basis for the Republican alternative to "Hillarycare" in the 90s. They've also pursued economically insane ideas like not raising the debt ceiling.

Well then, the network news outlets and the Democrat party lied to me.

Why do people say this? I am a Democrat. My party is the Democratic party. When did conservatives and right-leaning folks decide to make the switch? I don't remember hearing this until the 2008 election. Is it supposed to be a jab at me? Am I supposed to be offended? I'm just confused. I've never had someone explain this to me.

Think about this...The argument for more regulations on business and peoples lives hinges on the idea that we cannot be trusted to do the right thing without government oversight. We can't be trusted to make the right decisions for ourselves in homeschooling, medication, hunting, charity, recreational drug use, driving an automobile, sexual activities, reproductive activities...the list goes on and on.

I agree. But I think that the fact of the matter is that there are certain areas where we, as individuals or even as individual businesses or industries, cannot be trusted to do the right thing. In any intro to economics course you will learn several textbook cases (ie externalities, commons problems, collective action problems). There are all sorts of social problems that fall into these basic categories where for completely rational reasons, individuals will act in ways that would produce sub-optimal results for society at large. I don't think that it's somehow anti-liberty to believe as I do that we ought to organize ourselves through government to remedy these sorts of problems (ie provide public education, police neighborhoods, reduce pollution, promote food safety, maintain roads etc).

Basically, don't think that we can have an intelligent discussion about the proper role of government unless we accept, at minimum, that there are indeed areas where the government ought to be acting.

What one party pretends to defend the other pretends to try to take away...it's all a show to distract us. So, if we are too distracted, uneducated or uninterested to get involved then we can't be trusted to do anything ourselves.

So how can we be trusted to elect the right people to make and enforce legislation for us?

We can't. Or at least we usually don't. We make terrible decisions all the time. But we can do our best to make progress.

I have problems with the Obama administration, for example, but looking back at the previous administration and looking at our current crop of Republicans and trying to imagine what a McCain or worse, a Palin administration might have looked like, I have no doubt in my mind that Obama was an improvement from that of his predecessor and was the better of the two major party candidates. Even where I'm most strongly opposed to his policies (national security) I don't even want to think about what things would have been like under McCain.

Even if Romney wants to abolish abortion for good and all that doesn't automatically mean that this will happen if he is elected president. A vote for Romney does not equal a referendum against women's rights.

It kind of does.

If Romney wins he will almost certainly have a Republican House and Senate. If they behave anything like their compatriots on the state level have been behaving then we can expect to see anti-abortion measures put forth almost immediately. If they can figure out a way to accomplish that sort of thing through the reconciliation process, they can even do it without worrying about overcoming a filibuster from the Democratic minority. And there are things that I'd imagine would fit that bill, ie cutting funding for Planned Parenthood.

It's true that they will almost certainly not be able to actually outlaw abortion or contraceptives outright, as that's a constitutional question. But it's also true that in the term of the next president, it's not unlikely that a Supreme Court seat or two will be vacated (there are three justices in their late 70s). Who sits in the oval office will therefore more than likely have a hand in determining the balance of the Court going forward and therefore will have a hand in determining whether or not Roe and Griswold will be overturned if and when such a case came before the Court.

Honestly, I find the fact that the next president will likely make a few Supreme Court appointments (and many more judicial appointments) to be a very good reason to vote for the candidate that best lines up with your political views. It might be the single most important aspect of this election. Even if they're utter failures legislatively, even if their accomplishments are undone in the next administration, those appointments will have a decades long impact. Had Justice Roberts not changed his mind, for example, Obama's signature piece of legislation would have been struck down.

If Obama wins a second term it does not equal a referendum against gun rights or the evil rich people.

True. Since he ran state-wide in '04 Obama has been mostly silent on the issue of gun rights. It was one of several ways that he moderated his positions as he transitioned from a local to a national figure. And both parties love them some rich folks since rich folks contribute the vast vast majority of campaign funds.

Still, I find the view that the parties are identical to be absurd on its face. To make such a case requires that we ignore issues like the aforementioned differences between the parties on reproductive rights, as well as other issues like the enforcement of civil rights laws, where there is a stark contrast between the Obama administration and the previous administration. It makes a difference whether or not the party that will be in power next year wants to do something about climate change, wants to expand or contract programs like Medicaid and Medicare, wants to pursue supply side economics, is committed to gay rights etc.

This is not to say that there aren't areas where the election may not have an impact. We're not talking about mass incarceration, for example. We're not talking about our failed war on drugs that drives this problem. We're not talking about gun violence or easy access to firearms. And on issues of national security, while I doubt that a Romney administration would be preferable to another Obama administration, I doubt that this choice will have much of an impact on how many of our troops will be in Iraq and Afghanistan in 2016, however weak Republicans claim Obama is.

I'm well to the left of the president politically. In some areas there are Republicans like Gary Johnson that better represent my views than Obama. But our choice is not between Johnson and Obama. It's between Romney and Obama.

On a side note, the reason that Obama might have been up in an old poll of Tennessee voters is that it would have been conducted during the primary season when Republican animosity towards Mitt Romney was much higher. I don't think that any serious political operative thinks that Tennessee is in play in this election. Even Republicans that dislike Romney will jump at the chance to vote against Obama.

Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

-Thomas Jefferson, The Declaration of Independence

I hope these words aren't going to be again implemented, but I am less confident daily.

I believe it is way PAST time for us as the people to at least consider ways we could effectively act upon the words of Jefferson. The form of government that we have in extremely inefficient in many ways and NEEDS to be altered for the greater good of not only the governed, but of the globe as well. We need a revamped system!

Those sitting in seats of power within our government are virtually ALL from within the club of wealthy elites. The common man gets no seat at the lawmaking table. These elites are expert polarizers and professional deflectors. They frame arguments around big government verses small government when the solution both should be focusing on is how to make the governing body as efficient and effective as possible with size being farely irrelavant.

What we are failing to recognize is that to government, the people who are governed are nothing more than pawns or fodder that are are useful as they can be manipulated to be. To be loyal to any party is power is testament to the level of ignorance and/or emotionally motived hate of the "other" side. No side reveals any specifics or tells us what their end game is so that we can know EXACTLY what it is they are trying to turn the nation and world for that matter into.

I would love it if someone in the media were to put Paul Ryan and others from the conservative far right on the spot and ask them questions like:

- If we could afford to offer every person living in this country free, op-notch healthcare, would you advocate offering it? Why or why not?

Then they should follow up with:

- Since the economic factor is what stands between your support for this universal care and your current stance, what are your plans to fix the cost problem and get us to a position where everyone can be covered?